On Poetry and Authentic Philosophical Reflection: The American Philosophy of Octavio Paz Sobre Poesia e Autêntica Reflexão Filosófica: A Filosofia Americana de Octavio Paz Daniel G. Campos Assistant Professor of Philosophy Brooklyn College of the City University of New York – USA [email protected] Abstract: Octavio Paz conceives of authentic philosophical reflection as ‘thinking a la intemperie’. This conception involves his idea that our contemporary historical and philosophical situation is one of intemperie espiritual. Based on the dual sense of the term intemperie for Paz, I propose that ‘thinking a la intemperie’ means: (i) Exposing our beliefs to the weathering effects of our vital, concrete experience; and (ii) apprehending reality in communion with others through poetic experience of the ever- flowing present. That is, authentic philosophical reflection means making our home thinking and living without rigid, stifling ideological systems, in communion with our neighbors and with our places, here and now, in the unity of present place and present time that we create together. This mode of reflection belongs within a broad American tradition of philosophizing and, for Paz, responds to concerns compatible with those of the pragmatists. Key-words: American philosophy. Authenticity. Experience. Octavio Paz. Poetry. Time. Resumo: Octavio Paz concebe a autêntica reflexão filosófica como ‘pensar a la intemperie’. Esta concepção envolve sua idéia de que nossa situação filo- sófica e histórica contemporâneas é uma de intemperie espiritual. Baseado no sentido dual do termo intemperie para Paz, proponho que ‘pensar a la intemperie’ signifique: (i) expor nossas crenças aos efeitos tempestivo de nossa experiência vital, concreta; e (ii) apreender a realidade em comunhão com os outros através da experiência poética do sempre-fluente presente. Quer seja, uma autêntica reflexão filosófica significa viver e pensar for a de siste- mas ideológicos rígidos, asfixiantes, em comunhão com vizinhos e lugares, aqui e agora, na unidade do tempo e lugar presentes que criamos juntos. Este modo de reflexão pertence a uma vasta tradição americana de filosofar e, para Paz, responde a preocupações compatíveis com aquelas dos pragmatistas. Palvras-chave: Filosofia americana. Autenticidade. Experiência. Octavio Paz. Poesia. Tempo. Cognitio, São Paulo, v. 8, n. 2, p. 179-195, jul./dez. 2007 179 Cognitio – Revista de Filosofia In the Labyrinth of Solitude, Octavio Paz summons contemporary thinkers in Mexico and the Americas to authentic philosophical reflection. In calling for such a mode of reflection he writes: “Toda reflexión filosófica debe poseer autenticidad, esto es, debe ser un pensar a la intemperie un problema concreto” (1997, 203).1 Paz thus describes authentic philosophical reflection as ‘pensar a la intemperie’. Unfortunately, the English translation of this work completely omits this crucial passage.2 It is reasonable to speculate that this conspicuous omission is due to the difficulty of translating intemperie, as there is no precise English word to render its meaning. Being in the intemperie means being under the weathering effects of el tiempo. It implies a lack of protection from the elements, a lack of refuge from the forceful action of earth, wind, water, and fire. In other words, it implies an exposure to the raw, elemental forces of nature. In a poetical sense that accords with Paz’s thought, intemperie also suggests being unsheltered in the free, open flow of ever-present time. Here I develop an interpretation of Paz’s notion of authentic philosophical reflection that considers carefully his dual sense of intemperie. Accordingly I put forth that ‘thinking a la intemperie’ takes our philosophical reflection along a two-fold trajectory: (i) Exposing our beliefs to the raw weathering effects of our vital experience so that our reflection is responsive to our concrete reality; and (ii) apprehending reality, actively and reflectively, in communion with others through poetic experience of the ever-flowing present. The interpretation of this mode of reflection provides important insight into the thought of Octavio Paz since, throughout his critical work, he describes our historical and philosophical situation in late modernity as a condition of intemperie. In his Nobel lecture Search of the Present, for instance, Paz argues that as modernity ends we find ourselves in a state of “intemperie espiritual” (1991, 63). That is, we find ourselves without comprehensive religious or philosophical systems to provide spiritual and intellectual refuge and to guide us through our time in history. More importantly, I propose that this mode of reflection deserves our critical consideration in as much as our contemporary situation of living in a philosophical intemperie still lends legitimacy to the central questions that motivate the Labyrinth of Solitude: Who are we? And how do we express, how do we create and re-create, who we are? Paz aptly expresses the relevance and liveliness of this question for us when, towards the conclusion of the Labyrinth, he writes: “The object of these reflections is no different from that which troubles other men and other peoples: How can we create a society, a culture, that will not deny our humanity but will also not change it into an empty abstraction?” (1985, 193-194). The origins of this question for Paz are largely historical and sociopolitical. He thinks it is a particularly relevant question in Mexico because “the consciousness of being separate is a constant feature of our spiritual history” (1985, 10). Mexicans experience solitude as consciousness that their history, manifest in their sociopolitical institutions and ideological systems, betrays their identity and separates them from others. Their philosophical systems do not provide guidance to escape historical solitude by entering into communion with others. On the contrary, these systems are most often 1 “All philosophical reflection must be authentic; that is, it must be thinking a la intemperie about a concrete problem” (my translation). 2 See PAZ 1985. 180 Cognitio, São Paulo, v. 8, n. 2, p. 179-195, jul./dez. 2007 On Poetry and Authentic Philosophical Reflection inauthentic masks that bury the Mexicans’ authentic vital impulses and deny the possibility of authentic communion. At the close of Paz’s analysis in the Labyrinth, moreover, the state of solitude in the intemperie turns out to be a universal, and not an exclusively Mexican, experience even if the experience takes particular forms in different places. In calling us to ‘think a la intemperie’ from our concrete condition, then, Paz aims for us to find our way towards authentic communion. Below, I aim to elucidate, critique, and develop this conception of philosophical reflection. This effort, I hope, will help to bring the critical thought of Paz to the attention of an English readership that knows and critiques him mainly as a poet.3 More generally, I hope this will contribute to bring this Latin American thinker’s understanding of philosophical reflection to the attention of philosophers, American and otherwise.4 In fact, even though my main focus here lies in Paz’s thought, I would like to point out explicitly the affinity of Paz’s central philosophical interest in the Labyrinth with an important concern for classical pragmatist philosophers. Paz’s interest in the problem of how to create sociopolitical institutions that adequately express the underlying ways of being and living of a society may be understood as the problem of creating sociopolitical symbols that adequately express the nature of underlying social practices for the purpose of fostering and improving the life of that community. Alain Locke for instance, writing on cultural pluralism during the course of World War II, only a few years before Paz first published the Labyrinth, conceived of different political, social, and religious institutions as different symbols that often express similar underlying values. In the context of a world violently divided, Locke thought that the hope for cosmopolitan peace resided precisely in our pluralistic recognition that such different symbols or forms often express functionally equivalent values and ideals (LOCKE 2002, 437). Paz’s question, then, may be conceived along pragmatist lines as the problem of creating sociopolitical symbols 3 As far as my bibliographical research indicates, there has never been a philosophical article about Octavio Paz published in an English-language philosophy journal, even though there is ample bibliography in literary journals in English. This is not the case in Latin America, where there has long been philosophical literature on Paz’s thought. Even Jorge Gracia, who in the United States has written extensively on Latin American and Hispanic/Latino philosophy, labels Paz simply as a “literary writer” (2000, p. 205). 4 I use the italicized labels as a deliberate provocation. In calling attention to the absence of any reference to Latin American philosophy in most major encyclopedias of ‘world philosophies’ (written in English), Eduardo Mendieta points out that Latin American philosophy appears to be “[n]either ‘American’ nor ‘European’ enough. Nor non-Western enough” (1999, p. 51). Along with Mendieta, I think that it in fact has rich relationships with all those philosophies. Carlos Pereda (2006) in turn explores the reasons for this “invisibility” — some of them, he admits, are reasons internal to the practice of some philosophy in Latin America — and argues that “our” experience with the Latin American essay may help in remedying it. Pereda finds in the Latin American essay — among whose maximum exponents he includes Octavio Paz — a freshness of perspective, an incisive approach to particular problems with general implications, and an attitude of inquisitive engagement and interpellation that ultimately result in careful thought (2006, p. 196–197). The point of this article is partly to present the philosophical thought of an important writer who, it seems, would usually be classified as a ‘Latin American poet’ and not as a ‘world philosopher’, ‘American philosopher’, or just ‘philosopher’. Cognitio, São Paulo, v. 8, n. 2, p.